From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Pending projects :
- The Whole Earth Catalog full-volume scans from the first 5 years of issues (avoiding redundancy: around 1000 pages). Text to be Wikisourced; wikified text, updated with modern info about each book, bound for Wikibooks.
- Voice of America pronunciation file uploads. Once they are converted from ra to ogg, there will be 5100 of them. Looking for a bot to do the heavy lifting.
- Contest entries & results!
- for Wikimania
- Random project - what are the backlogs?
- Fixing the OTRS permissions process, and related deletion-vs-quarantine options.
How to contact me
I am less responsive to private or non-archived chats (in public it may be useful to others!) Yet you can also try:
My take on the sexual content debates
We'd be better off talking about appropriate content in general.
- An alternative one-sentence proposal
- "accept everything that is legal and notable, and improve project interfaces so readers can choose what images they want to see, and so that widely-used images sort to the top in all views". Commons should be a good universal repository; people should have ways to customize their reading.
- A useful focus
- on model release / personal release for any identifiable image of a private person... and on reliable copyright release from images that may have been flickrwashed. If we solve this part we've solved half of the major concerns about sexual content (copyvio, personal rights vio, images of a minor) and have addressed the far more prevalent problem of innocent bystanders who have photos of them posted permanently on Commons against their will (because some friend / fan / passerby took a photo of them in a private place that they don't want published, and released it under a free license without getting their consent).
- A useful focus
- on the spectrum of disturbing or contextually-inappropriate images. Sexual images are hardly the most disturbing. Gmaxwell suggested an interesting list on the pump. This is usually a problem of curation and context, not of the image in itself. So: a broken search engine produces bad results. A broken editorial process produces bad articles. A broken curation process on Commons can also produce a bad collection of media: of dubious legality (if copyright or consent aren't clear), or dubious quality (if there are no standards for relevance or notability), or dubious usability (if categories / filenames / descriptions are random, or all categories are dominated by flower pictures, &c). sexual images are not the worst example of any of these problems; the problems are real.
- A generalized proposal that makes me wince less
- User:Sj/Appropriate content
- A related issue to think about
- the majority of Commons viewers are people coming to see sexual content; and finding it directly from external search engines. Are they the primary intended audience for the site? If so, they are probably underrepresented in discussions by editors. If not, how do we define that intended audience?